'13 WRX: Mobil 1 ESP 5w30, 4,889 mi Sample

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
25
Location
Denver, CO
I took a mid-interval sample to see how the TBN is holding up, and I'd like to run it to the factory-recommended 7,500 mi OCI; Subaru OEM blue filter, as usual. Easy driving for the most part and lots of winter idling, a few autocross events during this interval.

Code:


Oil---------------------- Factory Fill ------ Edge OE 5w30---Pennzoil Platinum 5w30--- Pennzoil Ultra 5w30--- Mobil 1 ESP 5w30--- Universal Averages

Miles In Use 3,002 4,048 3,351 4,547 4,889

Miles on Unit 3,002 7,050 10,401 14,948 19,837

Date Changed 2/1/13 5/10/13 8/05/13 11/11/13 2/28/14

Make up Oil Added--------- 0 Qts. ------------ 0 Qts. ------- 0 Qts. ------------------ 0.6 Qts. ------------- 0 Qts.



Aluminum------------------ 7 ----------------- 9 ------------ 6 ----------------------- 5 ---------------------4 ----------------- 4

Chromium 1 1 1 1 1 1

Iron 34 16 14 11 10 9

Copper 27 9 7 5 3 9

Lead---------------------- 0 ----------------- 0 ------------ 0 ----------------------- 0 -------------------- 0 ----------------- 3

Tin 4 3 2 0 0 1

Molybdenum 1079 435 118 70 81 72

Nickel 0 0 0 0 1 0

Manganese 2 1 1 0 0 1

Silver-------------------- 2 ----------------- 1 ------------ 0 ----------------------- 1 -------------------- 1 ----------------- 0

Titanium 0 1 0 2 0 0

Potassium 2 2 2 1 0 2

Boron 198 26 6 60 126 46

Silicon 89 19 10 5 4 11

Sodium-------------------- 8 ----------------- 6 ------------ 1 ----------------------- 2 -------------------- 3 ----------------- 28

Calcium 2105 1777 2388 2422 1218 2006

Magnesium 12 6 12 15 6 369

Phosphorous 892 680 725 798 695 810

Zinc---------------------- 1082 -------------- 802 ---------- 831 --------------------- 842 ------------------ 778 --------------- 960

Barium 2 1 0 0 0 0



SUS Viscosity @ 210F------ 52.4 -------------- 66.1 --------- 58.9 -------------------- 57.3 ----------------- 62.8 -------------- 56-63

cSt Viscosity @ 100C 7.99 11.91 9.91 9.44 11.0 9.1-11.3

Flashpoint in F 405 435 405 425 410 >365

Fuel
Antifreeze %-------------- 0.0 --------------- 0.0 ---------- 0.0 --------------------- 0.0 ------------------ 0.0 --------------- 0.0

Water %. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insolubles % 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4
TBN N/A 2.8 N/A 5.2 3.0


Capture3_zps11b06ee8.jpg
 
Nice! The TBN retention is pretty impressive. Here's a voa I found:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2113520

And this is why we can't only consider the numbers in front of us.

Did you sample it through the dipstick tube? It will be interesting to see how it holds up after future runs. You would be fine (according to the manual) topping this up with 5W-40 ESP after you took the sample. Did you top up with more 5W-30 ESP?

-Dennis
 
Last edited:
Why only 3300k on the PP fill? I can see the short FF and the next short run but why continue with under 5k when using the oils meant for much longer? I'm not a extend way out there kinda guy but even I'm at 7500 with M1.

Not prying or giving you any bull just wondering what the thought process is on this one.
 
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Why only 3300k on the PP fill? I can see the short FF and the next short run but why continue with under 5k when using the oils meant for much longer? I'm not a extend way out there kinda guy but even I'm at 7500 with M1.

Not prying or giving you any bull just wondering what the thought process is on this one.


Probably because Resource Conserving oils haven't had such a great history in WRX's. It's only been a few years since Subaru of America allowed intervals of over 3,750 miles in a turbo. And that's only for the MY2011 and later models (for WRX's).

You couldn't pay me to run a 7,500 mile interval on an RC oil in my Forester. Well you could, but it would have to enough to pay for a new turbo and possibly a rebuild.
wink.gif


-Dennis
 
Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Nice! The TBN retention is pretty impressive. Here's a voa I found:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2113520

And this is why we can't only consider the numbers in front of us.

Did you sample it through the dipstick tube? It will be interesting to see how it holds up after future runs. You would be fine (according to the manual) topping this up with 5W-40 ESP after you took the sample. Did you top up with more 5W-30 ESP?

-Dennis

Cool, thanks for posting the VOA. Too bad he didn't sample 5w30, it would've been nice to see the starting KV100. Also, I'm assuming TBN depletion is not linear? If you assume it's linear, I think I should still be okay TBN-wise at 7.5k.

Yes, I bought a $2 siphon pump at the auto parts store and sampled through the dipstick tube. I topped up with more ESP 5w30, to the full line. It was almost a quart down after taking the sample. Good idea on topping up with 5w40, I'll have to try that.


Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Why only 3300k on the PP fill? I can see the short FF and the next short run but why continue with under 5k when using the oils meant for much longer? I'm not a extend way out there kinda guy but even I'm at 7500 with M1.

Not prying or giving you any bull just wondering what the thought process is on this one.


No worries. I know it probably seems odd, but Bluesubie guessed correctly. Since spun bearings are common on these cars, just being on the cautious side when it comes to Resource Conserving oils. I was comfortable running the Pennzoil Ultra oil to 5k because I've seen some UOAs on this car and results were pretty good. There was less data on the Pennzoil Platinum, so I decided to err on the side of caution and change it at the old Subaru turbo interval of 3,750 mi (although a week and 400 miles earlier, since it was convenient). I think I would've been fine running it to 5k.

I like the results from the ESP though. I'm comfortable running it to the factory-recommended interval of 7,500 miles.
 
Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Probably because Resource Conserving oils haven't had such a great history in WRX's. It's only been a few years since Subaru of America allowed intervals of over 3,750 miles in a turbo. And that's only for the MY2011 and later models (for WRX's).

You couldn't pay me to run a 7,500 mile interval on an RC oil in my Forester. Well you could, but it would have to enough to pay for a new turbo and possibly a rebuild.
wink.gif


-Dennis


Actually I've always wondered how Subaru managed to extend oil change intervals on the +2011 WRX/STI's to 7,500 Miles. All the turbo failure stories worried me, but I'm glad I trusted Subaru on their decision to extend OCI.

I stumbled upon the 2011 service manual:
ScreenShot2014-03-07at72600PM.png

They have improved the oil delivery to the turbocharger by separating it from the OCV supply. The turbocharger line do not have banjo bolt filter so there's nothing to block the supply and since its a dedicated line oil pressure and flow is pretty much guaranteed.

42,000 Miles on the clock at 7,500 OCI on my 2011 WRX. Using GTL PU 5W30 Resource Conserving and all is still well.

Do not try this on models before 2011 though.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rrounds
Look at the Moly in the factory fill, what is the factory fill? Calcium up there to.
I would try to find that oil.

ROD

Unfortunately, it's not sold to the public. It's Idemitsu, but a more robust version than the dealer oil.

KHP - Thanks for that!

I recall reading posts on nasioc about that but it's the first time I've actually seen the FSM pics. Still running my banjo bolt screens, even after my turbo failure, based on the lead Sr. master tech at my dealership convincing me that leaving them in to block debris outweighed the benefit of removing them to prevent sludge build-up.

-Dennis
 
I should note that TBN alone is a useless determination of remaining oil life. What matters is the difference of TBN from TAN. This is especially so with Mg-based oils like certain M1 formulations, which don't neutralize the acids effectively, which means the additive doesn't work hard and TBN stays high despite TAN increasing rapidly. So, the only reason TBN is staying high is because the detergent is failing to neutralize the harmful acids. I hope this is clear.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I should note that TBN alone is a useless determination of remaining oil life. What matters is the difference of TBN from TAN. This is especially so with Mg-based oils like certain M1 formulations, which don't neutralize the acids effectively, which means the additive doesn't work hard and TBN stays high despite TAN increasing rapidly. So, the only reason TBN is staying high is because the detergent is failing to neutralize the harmful acids. I hope this is clear.

Do you suggest getting a TBN as well as a TAN to gauge remaining oil life?
 
Originally Posted By: WRX12tt
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I should note that TBN alone is a useless determination of remaining oil life. What matters is the difference of TBN from TAN. This is especially so with Mg-based oils like certain M1 formulations, which don't neutralize the acids effectively, which means the additive doesn't work hard and TBN stays high despite TAN increasing rapidly. So, the only reason TBN is staying high is because the detergent is failing to neutralize the harmful acids. I hope this is clear.

Do you suggest getting a TBN as well as a TAN to gauge remaining oil life?

Ideally, yes.

You want TBN to stay above TAN. Blackstone TBNs are a little underestimated due to an outdated test method though. So, perhaps if you have Blackstone TBN and TAN data, you want the TBN to be no less than about TAN - 2.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: WRX12tt
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I should note that TBN alone is a useless determination of remaining oil life. What matters is the difference of TBN from TAN. This is especially so with Mg-based oils like certain M1 formulations, which don't neutralize the acids effectively, which means the additive doesn't work hard and TBN stays high despite TAN increasing rapidly. So, the only reason TBN is staying high is because the detergent is failing to neutralize the harmful acids. I hope this is clear.

Do you suggest getting a TBN as well as a TAN to gauge remaining oil life?

Ideally, yes.

You want TBN to stay above TAN. Blackstone TBNs are a little underestimated due to an outdated test method though. So, perhaps if you have Blackstone TBN and TAN data, you want the TBN to be no less than about TAN - 2.

Actually the difference between ASTM D-2896 and D-4739 doesn't seem that great. See this reference (PDF link).

So, I think TBN > TAN is a good criteria for optimally serviceable oil, even with the older test method for TBN.

Also, see this previous discussion.
 
I had the TAN run on the same sample and it ended up being 2.2. Hopefully it'll stay under the TBN until 7.5k.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top